Independent Submission D. Binet
Request for Comments: 7849 M. Boucadair
Category: Informational Orange
ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Vizdal
Deutsche Telekom AG
G. Chen
China Mobile
N. Heatley
EE
R. Chandler
eircom | meteor
D. Michaud
Rogers Communications
D. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
W. Haeffner
Vodafone
May 2016
Independent Submission D. Binet
Request for Comments: 7849 M. Boucadair
Category: Informational Orange
ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Vizdal
Deutsche Telekom AG
G. Chen
China Mobile
N. Heatley
EE
R. Chandler
eircom | meteor
D. Michaud
Rogers Communications
D. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
W. Haeffner
Vodafone
May 2016
An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices
3GPP移动设备的IPv6配置文件
Abstract
摘要
This document defines a profile that is a superset of the connection to IPv6 cellular networks defined in the IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts document. This document defines a profile that is a superset of the connections to IPv6 cellular networks defined in "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts" (RFC 7066).
本文档定义了一个配置文件，该配置文件是IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project（3GPP）蜂窝主机文档中定义的IPv6蜂窝网络连接的超集。本文档定义了一个配置文件，该配置文件是“第三代合作伙伴关系项目（3GPP）蜂窝主机IPv6”（RFC 7066）中定义的IPv6蜂窝网络连接的超集。
Both mobile hosts and mobile devices with the capability to share their 3GPP mobile connectivity are in scope.
能够共享其3GPP移动连接的移动主机和移动设备都在范围内。
IESG Note
IESG注释
The consensus-based IETF description of IPv6 functionality for cellular hosts is described in RFC 7066.
RFC 7066中描述了蜂窝主机IPv6功能的基于共识的IETF描述。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
这是对RFC系列的贡献，独立于任何其他RFC流。RFC编辑器已选择自行发布此文档，并且未声明其对实现或部署的价值。RFC编辑批准发布的文件不适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7849.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7849.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2016 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . 11
4. Advanced Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . 11
4. Advanced Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
IPv6 deployment in 3GPP mobile networks is the only viable solution to the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses in those networks. Several mobile operators have already deployed IPv6 [RFC2460] or are in the pre-deployment phase. One of the major hurdles as perceived by some mobile operators is the lack of availability of working IPv6 implementation in mobile devices (e.g., Section 3.3 of [OECD]).
在3GPP移动网络中部署IPv6是解决这些网络中IPv4地址耗尽的唯一可行的解决方案。一些移动运营商已经部署了IPv6[RFC2460]或处于预部署阶段。一些移动运营商认为的一个主要障碍是移动设备中无法有效实施IPv6（例如，[OECD]第3.3节）。
[RFC7066] lists a set of features to be supported by cellular hosts to connect to 3GPP mobile networks. In the light of recent IPv6 production deployments, additional features to facilitate IPv6-only deployments while accessing IPv4-only services should be considered.
[RFC7066]列出了连接到3GPP移动网络的蜂窝主机所支持的一组功能。鉴于最近的IPv6生产部署，应考虑在访问仅IPv4服务的同时提供其他功能以方便仅IPv6部署。
This document fills this void. Concretely, this document lists means to ensure IPv4 service over an IPv6-only connectivity given the adoption rate of this model by mobile operators. Those operators require that no service degradation is experienced by customers serviced with an IPv6-only model compared to the level of service of customers with legacy IPv4-only devices.
这份文件填补了这一空白。具体地说，鉴于移动运营商对该模型的采用率，本文档列出了确保IPv4服务通过仅IPv6连接的方法。这些运营商要求，与使用传统的仅IPv4设备的客户相比，使用仅IPv6模式服务的客户不会出现服务降级。
This document defines an IPv6 profile for mobile devices listing specifications produced by various Standards Developing Organizations (including 3GPP, IETF, and the Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA)). The objectives of this effort are as follows:
本文档定义了移动设备的IPv6配置文件，列出了各种标准开发组织（包括3GPP、IETF和全球移动通信系统协会（GSMA））制定的规范。这项工作的目标如下：
1. List in one single document a comprehensive list of IPv6 features for a mobile device, including both IPv6-only and dual-stack mobile deployment contexts. These features cover various packet core architectures such as General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) or Evolved Packet Core (EPC).
1. 在单个文档中列出移动设备的IPv6功能的综合列表，包括仅IPv6和双堆栈移动部署上下文。这些功能涵盖各种分组核心架构，如通用分组无线业务（GPRS）或演进分组核心（EPC）。
2. Help operators with the detailed device requirement list preparation (to be exchanged with device suppliers). This is also a contribution to harmonize operators' requirements towards device vendors.
2. 帮助操作员准备详细的设备需求清单（与设备供应商交换）。这也有助于协调运营商对设备供应商的要求。
3. Inform vendors of a set of features to allow for IPv6 connectivity and IPv4 service continuity (over an IPv6-only transport).
3. 通知供应商一组允许IPv6连接和IPv4服务连续性（仅通过IPv6传输）的功能。
The recommendations do not include 3GPP release details. For more information on the 3GPP release details, the reader may refer to Section 6.2 of [RFC6459]. More details can be found at [R3GPP].
这些建议不包括3GPP发布细节。有关3GPP发布详情的更多信息，读者可参考[RFC6459]第6.2节。有关更多详细信息，请访问[R3GPP]。
Some of the features listed in this profile document could require that dedicated functions be activated at the network side. It is out of scope of this document to list these network-side functions.
本概要文件中列出的某些功能可能需要在网络端激活专用功能。列出这些网络端功能超出了本文档的范围。
A detailed overview of IPv6 support in 3GPP architectures is provided in [RFC6459]. IPv6-only considerations in mobile networks are further discussed in [RFC6342].
[RFC6459]中提供了3GPP体系结构中IPv6支持的详细概述。[RFC6342]中进一步讨论了移动网络中仅考虑IPv6的问题。
This document is organized as follows:
本文件的组织结构如下：
o Section 2 lists generic recommendations, including functionalities to provide IPv4 service over an IPv6-only connectivity.
o 第2节列出了一般建议，包括通过仅限IPv6的连接提供IPv4服务的功能。
o Section 3 enumerates a set of recommendations for cellular devices with Local Area Network (LAN) capabilities (e.g., Customer Edge (CE) routers with cellular access link, dongles with tethering features).
o 第3节列举了一组针对具有局域网（LAN）功能的蜂窝设备的建议（例如，具有蜂窝接入链路的客户边缘（CE）路由器、具有栓系功能的加密狗）。
o Section 4 identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill requirements of critical services such as VoLTE (Voice over LTE).
o 第4节确定了一组高级建议，以满足关键服务的要求，如VoLTE（LTE语音）。
This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6459]. In addition, the following terms are used:
本文件使用了[RFC6459]中定义的术语。此外，还使用了以下术语：
o 3GPP cellular host (or "cellular host" for short): denotes a 3GPP device that can be connected to 3GPP mobile networks.
o 3GPP蜂窝主机（简称“蜂窝主机”）：表示可以连接到3GPP移动网络的3GPP设备。
o 3GPP cellular device (or "cellular device" for short): refers to a cellular host that supports the capability to share its 3GPP mobile connectivity.
o 3GPP蜂窝设备（简称“蜂窝设备”）：指支持共享其3GPP移动连接能力的蜂窝主机。
o IPv4 service continuity: denotes the features used to provide access to IPv4-only services to customers serviced with an IPv6-only connectivity. A typical example of IPv4 service continuity technique is Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers (NAT64) [RFC6146].
o IPv4服务连续性：表示用于向使用仅IPv6连接服务的客户提供仅IPv4服务访问权的功能。IPv4服务连续性技术的一个典型示例是从IPv6客户端到IPv4服务器（NAT64）的网络地址和协议转换[RFC6146]。
PREFIX64 denotes an IPv6 prefix used to build IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses [RFC6052].
PREFIX64表示用于构建IPv4转换的IPv6地址的IPv6前缀[RFC6052]。
A 3GPP mobile network can be used to connect various User Equipment (UE) such as a mobile telephone or a CE router. Because of this diversity of terminals, it is necessary to define a set of IPv6 functionalities valid for any node directly connecting to a 3GPP mobile network. This document describes these functionalities.
3GPP移动网络可用于连接各种用户设备（UE），例如移动电话或CE路由器。由于终端的这种多样性，有必要定义一组对直接连接到3GPP移动网络的任何节点有效的IPv6功能。本文档描述了这些功能。
The machine-to-machine (M2M) devices profile is out of scope.
机器对机器（M2M）设备配置文件超出范围。
This document is structured to provide the generic IPv6 recommendations that are valid for all nodes, whatever their function (e.g., host or CE router) or service (e.g., Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261]) capability. The document also contains sections covering specific functionalities for devices providing some LAN functions (e.g., mobile CE router or broadband dongles).
本文档旨在提供适用于所有节点的通用IPv6建议，无论其功能（如主机或CE路由器）或服务（如会话启动协议（SIP）[RFC3261]）。本文件还包含一些章节，涵盖提供某些LAN功能的设备的特定功能（例如，移动CE路由器或宽带加密狗）。
The recommendations listed below are valid for both 3GPP GPRS and 3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS). For EPS, the term "PDN-Connection" is used instead of PDP-Context. Other non-3GPP accesses [TS.23402] are out of scope of this document.
下面列出的建议适用于3GPP GPRS和3GPP演进分组系统（EPS）。对于EPS，使用术语“PDN连接”代替PDP上下文。其他非3GPP访问[TS.23402]不在本文档范围内。
This profile is a superset of that of the IPv6 profile for 3GPP Cellular Hosts [RFC7066], which is in turn a superset of IPv6 Node Requirements [RFC6434]. It targets cellular nodes, including GPRS and EPC, that require features to ensure IPv4 service delivery over an IPv6-only transport in addition to the base IPv6 service. Moreover, this profile also covers cellular CE routers that are used in various mobile broadband deployments. Recommendations inspired from real deployment experiences (e.g., roaming) are included in this profile. Also, this profile sketches recommendations for the sake of deterministic behaviors of cellular devices when the same configuration information is received over several channels.
此配置文件是3GPP蜂窝式主机的IPv6配置文件[RFC7066]的超集，后者又是IPv6节点要求[RFC6434]的超集。它的目标是蜂窝节点，包括GPRS和EPC，这些节点除了基本IPv6服务外，还需要一些功能来确保通过仅限IPv6的传输提供IPv4服务。此外，此配置文件还包括用于各种移动宽带部署的蜂窝CE路由器。此概要文件中包含了从实际部署体验（例如漫游）中获得的建议。此外，当通过多个信道接收相同的配置信息时，为了蜂窝设备的确定性行为，该概要文件勾画了建议。
For conflicting recommendations in [RFC7066] and [RFC6434] (e.g., Neighbor Discovery Protocol), this profile adheres to [RFC7066]. Indeed, the support of Neighbor Discovery Protocol is mandatory in 3GPP cellular environment as it is the only way to convey an IPv6 prefix towards the 3GPP cellular device. In particular, Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) communication via Router Advertisement (RA) must be supported since many 3GPP networks do not have a standard MTU setting.
对于[RFC7066]和[RFC6434]中存在冲突的建议（例如，邻居发现协议），此配置文件遵循[RFC7066]。实际上，邻居发现协议的支持在3GPP蜂窝环境中是强制性的，因为它是向3GPP蜂窝设备传送IPv6前缀的唯一方式。特别地，必须支持经由路由器广告（RA）的最大传输单元（MTU）通信，因为许多3GPP网络没有标准MTU设置。
This profile uses a stronger language for the support of Prefix Delegation compared to [RFC7066]. The main motivation is that cellular networks are more and more perceived as an alternative to fixed networks for home IP-based services delivery; especially with the advent of smartphones and 3GPP data dongles. There is a need for
与[RFC7066]相比，此配置文件使用了更强大的语言来支持前缀委派。其主要动机是，蜂窝网络越来越被视为基于家庭IP的服务交付的固定网络的替代方案；特别是随着智能手机和3GPP数据加密狗的出现。有必要
an efficient mechanism to assign larger prefixes to cellular hosts so that each LAN segment can get its own /64 prefix and multi-link subnet issues to be avoided. The support of this functionality in both cellular and fixed networks is key for fixed-mobile convergence.
一种有效的机制，用于为蜂窝式主机分配更大的前缀，以便每个LAN段都可以获得自己的/64前缀，并避免多链路子网问题。在蜂窝和固定网络中支持这一功能是固定移动融合的关键。
The use of address-family-dependent Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) or hard-coded IPv4 address literals may lead to broken applications when IPv6 connectivity is in use. As such, means to minimize broken applications when the cellular host is attached to an IPv6-only network should be encouraged. Particularly, (1) name resolution libraries (e.g., [RFC3596]) must support both IPv4 and IPv6; (2) applications must be independent of the underlying IP address family; and (3) applications relying upon Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) must follow [RFC3986] and its updates. Note, some IETF specifications (e.g., SIP [RFC3261]) contains broken IPv6 Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) and rules to compare URIs with embedded IPv6 addresses; fixes (e.g., [RFC5954]) must be used instead.
在使用IPv6连接时，使用依赖于地址系列的应用程序编程接口（API）或硬编码IPv4地址文字可能会导致应用程序中断。因此，当蜂窝主机连接到仅限IPv6的网络时，应鼓励采取措施尽量减少中断的应用程序。特别是，（1）名称解析库（例如，[RFC3596]）必须同时支持IPv4和IPv6；（2） 应用程序必须独立于基础IP地址系列；（3）依赖统一资源标识符（URI）的应用程序必须遵循[RFC3986]及其更新。注意，一些IETF规范（例如SIP[RFC3261]）包含损坏的IPv6 Augmented Backus Naur表单（ABNF）和将URI与嵌入式IPv6地址进行比较的规则；必须改用修复程序（例如[RFC5954]）。
The recommendations included in each section are listed in a priority order.
各节中包含的建议按优先顺序列出。
This document is not a standard, and conformance with it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6. Compliance with this profile does not require the support of all enclosed items. Obviously, the support of the full set of features may not be required in some deployment contexts. However, the authors believe that not supporting relevant features included in this profile (e.g., Customer-Side Translator (CLAT) [RFC6877]) may lead to a degraded level of service.
本文档不是一个标准，声明符合IPv6的IETF标准不需要符合它。遵守此配置文件不需要所有随附项目的支持。显然，在某些部署上下文中可能不需要支持全套功能。但是，作者认为，不支持此概要文件中包含的相关功能（例如，客户端翻译器（CLAT）[RFC6877]）可能会导致服务级别降低。
This section identifies the main connectivity recommendations to be followed by a cellular host to attach to a network using IPv6 in addition to what is defined in [RFC6434] and [RFC7066]. Both dual-stack and IPv6-only deployment models are considered. IPv4 service continuity features are listed in this section because these are critical for operators with an IPv6-only deployment model. These recommendations apply also for cellular devices (see Section 3).
除[RFC6434]和[RFC7066]中的定义外，本节还确定了蜂窝主机连接到使用IPv6的网络时应遵循的主要连接建议。同时考虑了双栈和仅IPv6部署模型。本节列出了IPv4服务连续性功能，因为这些功能对于采用仅IPv6部署模式的运营商至关重要。这些建议也适用于蜂窝设备（见第3节）。
C_REC#1: In order to allow each operator to select their own strategy regarding IPv6 introduction, the cellular host must support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts [TS.23060].
C_REC#1：为了允许每个运营商选择自己的IPv6引入策略，蜂窝主机必须同时支持IPv6和IPv4v6 PDP上下文[TS.23060]。
IPv4, IPv6, or IPv4v6 PDP-Context request acceptance depends on the cellular network configuration.
IPv4、IPv6或IPv4v6 PDP上下文请求接受取决于蜂窝网络配置。
C_REC#2: The cellular host must comply with the behavior defined in [TS.23060], [TS.23401], and [TS.24008] for requesting a PDP-Context type.
C_REC#2：蜂窝主机必须遵守[TS.23060]、[TS.23401]和[TS.24008]中定义的行为，以请求PDP上下文类型。
In particular, the cellular host must request by default an IPv6 PDP-Context if the cellular host is IPv6-only and request an IPv4v6 PDP-Context if the cellular host is dual-stack or when the cellular host is not aware of connectivity types requested by devices connected to it (e.g., a cellular host with LAN capabilities as discussed in Section 3):
特别是，如果蜂窝主机仅为IPv6，则蜂窝主机在默认情况下必须请求IPv6 PDP上下文；如果蜂窝主机为双栈，或当蜂窝主机不知道连接到它的设备请求的连接类型时，则蜂窝主机必须请求IPv4v6 PDP上下文（例如，第3节中讨论的具有LAN功能的蜂窝主机）:
* If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by the network but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, then the cellular host will be configured with an IPv4 address or an IPv6 prefix by the network. It must initiate another PDP-Context activation of the other address family in addition to the one already activated for a given Access Point Name (APN). The purpose of initiating a second PDP-Context is to achieve dual-stack connectivity by means of two PDP-Contexts.
* 如果网络不支持请求的IPv4v6 PDP上下文，但允许使用IPv4和IPv6 PDP类型，则网络将使用IPv4地址或IPv6前缀配置蜂窝主机。除了已为给定接入点名称（APN）激活的地址系列外，它还必须启动另一个地址系列的PDP上下文激活。启动第二个PDP上下文的目的是通过两个PDP上下文实现双堆栈连接。
* If the subscription data or network configuration allows only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the cellular host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same APN for the other IP address family.
* 如果订阅数据或网络配置仅允许一个IP地址系列（IPv4或IPv6），则蜂窝主机不得为另一个IP地址系列向同一APN请求第二个PDP上下文。
The network informs the cellular host about allowed Packet Data Protocol (PDP) types by means of Session Management (SM) cause codes. In particular, the following cause codes can be returned:
网络通过会话管理（SM）原因码通知蜂窝主机允许的分组数据协议（PDP）类型。特别是，可以返回以下原因代码：
* cause #50 "PDP type IPv4 only allowed" - This cause code is used by the network to indicate that only PDP type IPv4 is allowed for the requested Public Data Network (PDN) connectivity.
* 原因#50“仅允许PDP类型IPv4”-此原因代码由网络用于指示仅允许PDP类型IPv4用于请求的公共数据网络（PDN）连接。
* cause #51 "PDP type IPv6 only allowed" - This cause code is used by the network to indicate that only PDP type IPv6 is allowed for the requested PDN connectivity.
* 原因#51“仅允许PDP类型IPv6”-此原因代码由网络用于指示仅允许PDP类型IPv6用于请求的PDN连接。
* cause #52 "single address bearers only allowed" - This cause code is used by the network to indicate that the requested PDN connectivity is accepted with the restriction that only single IP version bearers are allowed.
* 原因#52“仅允许单个地址承载”-网络使用此原因代码表示接受请求的PDN连接，但仅允许单个IP版本承载。
The text above focuses on the specification (an excerpt from [TS.23060], [TS.23401], and [TS.24008]) that explains the behavior for requesting IPv6-related PDP-Context(s).
上面的文本集中于说明请求IPv6相关PDP上下文行为的规范（摘自[TS.23060]、[TS.23401]和[TS.24008]）。
C_REC#3: The cellular host must support the Protocol Configuration Options (PCOs) [TS.24008] to retrieve the IPv6 address(es) of the Recursive DNS server(s).
C_REC#3：蜂窝主机必须支持协议配置选项（PCOs）[TS.24008]以检索递归DNS服务器的IPv6地址。
The 3GPP network communicates parameters by means of the protocol configuration options information element when activating, modifying, or deactivating a PDP-Context. PCO is a convenient method to inform the cellular host about various services, including DNS server information. It does not require additional protocol to be supported by the cellular host and it is already deployed in IPv4 cellular networks to convey such DNS information.
3GPP网络在激活、修改或停用PDP上下文时通过协议配置选项信息元素来传送参数。PCO是一种方便的方法，用于通知蜂窝主机各种服务，包括DNS服务器信息。它不需要蜂窝主机支持其他协议，并且已经部署在IPv4蜂窝网络中以传输此类DNS信息。
C_REC#4: The cellular host must support IPv6-aware Traffic Flow Templates (TFTs) [TS.24008].
C_REC#4：蜂窝主机必须支持IPv6感知流量模板（TFT）[TS.24008]。
Traffic Flow Templates are employing a packet filter to couple an IP traffic with a PDP-Context. Thus, a dedicated PDP-Context and radio resources can be provided by the cellular network for certain IP traffic.
流量模板采用包过滤器将IP流量与PDP上下文耦合。因此，蜂窝网络可以为特定IP业务提供专用PDP上下文和无线电资源。
C_REC#5: If the cellular host receives the DNS information in several channels for the same interface, the following preference order must be followed:
C_REC#5：如果蜂窝主机在同一接口的多个通道中接收到DNS信息，则必须遵循以下优先顺序：
1. PCO
1. PCO
2. RA
2. 类风湿关节炎
3. DHCPv6
3. 动态主机配置协议版本六
The purpose of this recommendation is to guarantee for a deterministic behavior to be followed by all cellular hosts when the DNS information is received in various channels.
本建议的目的是保证当在各种信道中接收到DNS信息时，所有蜂窝主机都遵循确定性行为。
C_REC#6: Because of potential operational deficiencies to be experienced in some roaming situations, the cellular host must be able to be configured with a home PDP-Context type(s) and a roaming PDP-Context type(s). The purpose of the roaming profile is to limit the PDP type(s) requested by the cellular host when out of the home network. Note that distinct PDP type(s) and APN(s) can be configured for home and roaming cases.
C_REC#6：由于在某些漫游情况下可能会遇到潜在的操作缺陷，蜂窝主机必须能够配置家庭PDP上下文类型和漫游PDP上下文类型。漫游配置文件的目的是限制蜂窝主机在离开家庭网络时请求的PDP类型。请注意，可以为归属和漫游情况配置不同的PDP类型和APN。
A detailed analysis of roaming failure cases is included in [RFC7445].
[RFC7445]中包含漫游失败案例的详细分析。
The configuration can be either local to the device or be managed dynamically using, for example, Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) management. The support of dynamic means is encouraged.
配置可以是设备的本地配置，也可以使用开放移动联盟（OMA）管理动态管理。鼓励支持动态手段。
C_REC#7: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only deployment context, the cellular host should support a method to learn PREFIX64(s).
C_REC#7：为了确保仅在IPv6部署环境中的IPv4服务连续性，蜂窝主机应支持一种学习PREFIX64的方法。
In the context of NAT64, IPv6-enabled applications relying on address referrals will fail because an IPv6-only client will not be able to make use of an IPv4 address received in a referral. This feature allows for solving the referral problem (because an IPv6-enabled application can construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses [RFC6052]) and, also, for distinguishing between IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses and native IPv6 addresses.
在NAT64的上下文中，依赖于地址引用的支持IPv6的应用程序将失败，因为仅限IPv6的客户端将无法使用在引用中接收的IPv4地址。此功能允许解决引用问题（因为启用IPv6的应用程序可以构造IPv4嵌入式IPv6地址[RFC6052]），还可以区分IPv4转换的IPv6地址和本机IPv6地址。
In other words, this feature contributes to offload both the CLAT module and NAT64 devices. Refer to Section 3 of [RFC7051] for an inventory of the issues related to the discovery of PREFIX64(s).
换句话说，此功能有助于卸载CLAT模块和NAT64设备。请参阅[RFC7051]第3节，了解与PREFIX64发现相关的问题清单。
In environments based on the Port Control Protocol (PCP), cellular hosts should follow [RFC7225] to learn the IPv6 Prefix used by an upstream PCP-controlled NAT64 device. If PCP is not enabled, the cellular host should implement the method specified in [RFC7050] to retrieve the PREFIX64.
在基于端口控制协议（PCP）的环境中，蜂窝主机应遵循[RFC7225]来了解由上游PCP控制的NAT64设备使用的IPv6前缀。如果未启用PCP，蜂窝主机应实施[RFC7050]中指定的方法来检索前缀x64。
C_REC#8: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only deployment context, the cellular host should implement the CLAT [RFC6877] function in compliance with [RFC6052], [RFC6145], and [RFC6146].
C_REC#8：为了确保仅在IPv6部署环境中的IPv4服务连续性，蜂窝主机应按照[RFC6052]、[RFC6145]和[RFC6146]实现CLAT[RFC6877]功能。
The CLAT function in the cellular host allows for IPv4-only application and IPv4 referrals to work on an IPv6-only connectivity. The more applications are address family independent, the less the CLAT function is solicited. The CLAT function requires a NAT64 capability [RFC6146] in the network.
蜂窝主机中的CLAT功能允许仅IPv4应用程序和IPv4引用在仅IPv6连接上工作。独立于地址族的应用程序越多，请求的CLAT函数就越少。CLAT函数需要网络中的NAT64功能[RFC6146]。
The cellular host should only invoke CLAT in the absence of IPv4 connectivity on the cellular side, i.e., when the network does not assign an IPv4 address on the
蜂窝主机应仅在蜂窝侧没有IPv4连接的情况下（即，当网络未在网络上分配IPv4地址时）调用CLAT
cellular interface. Note, NAT64 assumes an IPv6-only mode [RFC6146].
蜂窝接口。注意，NAT64采用仅IPv6模式[RFC6146]。
The IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix used by CLAT is defined in [RFC7335].
CLAT使用的IPv4服务连续性前缀在[RFC7335]中定义。
CLAT and/or NAT64 do not interfere with native IPv6 communications.
CLAT和/或NAT64不会干扰本机IPv6通信。
CLAT may not be required in some contexts, e.g., if other solutions such as Bump-in-the-Host (BIH) [RFC6535] are supported.
在某些情况下可能不需要CLAT，例如，如果支持其他解决方案，如主机中的通气（BIH）[RFC6535]。
The cellular device can act as a CE router connecting various IP hosts on a LAN segment; this is also the case with using WLAN (Wireless LAN) tethering or a WLAN hotspot from the cellular device. Some of these IP hosts can be dual-stack, others are IPv6-only or IPv4-only. IPv6-only connectivity on the cellular device does not allow IPv4-only sessions to be established for hosts connected on the LAN segment of the cellular device. IPv4 session establishment initiated from hosts located on the LAN segment side and destined for IPv4 nodes must be maintained. A solution is to integrate the CLAT function to the LAN segment in the cellular device.
蜂窝设备可以充当连接LAN段上的各种IP主机的CE路由器；从蜂窝设备使用WLAN（无线LAN）栓系或WLAN热点时也是如此。这些IP主机中的一些可以是双栈的，其他的只能是IPv6或IPv4。蜂窝设备上的仅IPv6连接不允许为连接在蜂窝设备LAN段上的主机建立仅IPv4会话。必须维护从位于LAN网段侧的主机启动并以IPv4节点为目的地的IPv4会话建立。解决方案是将CLAT功能集成到蜂窝设备中的LAN段。
C_REC#9: The cellular host may be able to be configured to limit PDP type(s) for a given APN. The default mode is to allow all supported PDP types. Note, C_REC#2 discusses the default behavior for requesting PDP-Context type(s).
C_REC#9：蜂窝主机可以配置为限制给定APN的PDP类型。默认模式是允许所有支持的PDP类型。注意，C#u REC#2讨论了请求PDP上下文类型的默认行为。
This feature is useful to drive the behavior of the UE to be aligned with (1) service-specific constraints such as the use of IPv6-only for VoLTE, (2) network conditions with regard to the support of specific PDP types (e.g., IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported), (3) IPv4 sunset objectives, (4) subscription data, etc.
该特征有助于驱动UE的行为与（1）特定于服务的约束相一致，例如仅对VoLTE使用IPv6，（2）关于支持特定PDP类型的网络条件（例如，不支持IPv4v6 PDP上下文），（3）IPv4日落目标，（4）订阅数据等。
Note, a cellular host changing its connection between an IPv6-specific APN and an IPv4-specific APN will interrupt related network connections. This may be considered as a brokenness situation by some applications.
注意，蜂窝主机更改其在IPv6特定APN和IPv4特定APN之间的连接将中断相关的网络连接。某些应用程序可能认为这是一种中断情况。
The configuration can be either local to the device or be managed dynamically using, for example, OMA management. The support of dynamic means is encouraged.
配置可以是设备的本地配置，也可以使用例如OMA管理进行动态管理。鼓励支持动态手段。
This section focuses on cellular devices (e.g., CE routers, smartphones, or dongles with tethering features) that provide IP connectivity to other devices connected to them. In this case, all connected devices are sharing the same 2G, 3G, or LTE connection. In addition to the generic recommendations listed in Section 2, these cellular devices have to meet the recommendations listed below.
本节重点介绍为与其相连的其他设备提供IP连接的蜂窝设备（例如CE路由器、智能手机或具有栓系功能的加密狗）。在这种情况下，所有连接的设备共享相同的2G、3G或LTE连接。除了第2节中列出的一般建议外，这些蜂窝设备还必须满足下面列出的建议。
L_REC#1: For deployments that require that the same /64 prefix be shared, the cellular device should support [RFC7278] to enable sharing a /64 prefix between the LAN and the WAN interfaces. The WAN interface is the one towards the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN) / Packet Data Network Gateway (PGW).
L_REC#1：对于需要共享相同/64前缀的部署，蜂窝设备应支持[RFC7278]，以便在LAN和WAN接口之间共享/64前缀。WAN接口是指向网关GPRS支持节点（GGSN）/分组数据网络网关（PGW）的接口。
Prefix Delegation (refer to L_REC#2) is the target solution for distributing prefixes in the LAN side but, because the device may attach to earlier 3GPP release networks, a means to share a /64 prefix is also recommended [RFC7278].
前缀委派（参考L#U REC#2）是在LAN端分发前缀的目标解决方案，但是，由于设备可能连接到早期的3GPP发布网络，因此也建议使用共享/64前缀的方法[RFC7278]。
[RFC7278] must be invoked only if Prefix Delegation is not in use.
只有在未使用前缀委派时，才必须调用[RFC7278]。
L_REC#2: The cellular device must support Prefix Delegation capabilities [RFC3633] and must support the Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation as defined in [RFC6603]. Particularly, it must behave as a Requesting Router.
L_REC#2：蜂窝设备必须支持前缀委派功能[RFC3633]，并且必须支持[RFC6603]中定义的基于DHCPv6的前缀委派的前缀排除选项。特别是，它必须充当请求路由器。
Cellular networks are more and more perceived as an alternative to fixed broadband networks for home IP-based services delivery; especially with the advent of smartphones and 3GPP data dongles. There is a need for an efficient mechanism to assign larger prefixes (other than /64s) to cellular hosts so that each LAN segment can get its own /64 prefix and multi-link subnet issues to be avoided.
蜂窝网络越来越被视为家庭IP服务交付的固定宽带网络的替代方案；特别是随着智能手机和3GPP数据加密狗的出现。需要一种有效的机制来为蜂窝主机分配更大的前缀（而不是/64），以便每个LAN段都可以获得自己的/64前缀，并避免多链路子网问题。
In case a prefix is delegated to a cellular host using DHCPv6, the cellular device will be configured with two prefixes:
如果使用DHCPv6将前缀委派给蜂窝主机，蜂窝设备将配置两个前缀：
(1) one for the 3GPP link allocated using the Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) mechanism and
(1) 一个用于使用无状态地址自动配置（SLAAC）机制分配的3GPP链路，以及
(2) another one delegated for LANs acquired during the Prefix Delegation operation.
(2) 为前缀委派操作期间获取的LAN委派的另一个。
Note that the 3GPP network architecture requires both the WAN and the delegated prefix to be aggregatable so the subscriber can be identified using a single prefix.
注意，3GPP网络架构要求WAN和委托前缀都是可聚合的，以便可以使用单个前缀识别订户。
Without the Prefix Exclude Option, the delegating router (GGSN/PGW) will have to ensure compliance with [RFC3633] (e.g., halving the delegated prefix and assigning the WAN prefix out of the first half and the prefix to be delegated to the terminal from the second half).
如果没有前缀排除选项，委托路由器（GGSN/PGW）将必须确保符合[RFC3633]（例如，将委托前缀减半，并将WAN前缀从前半部分分配出去，将前缀从后半部分分配给终端）。
Because Prefix Delegation capabilities may not be available in some attached networks, L_REC#1 is strongly recommended to accommodate early deployments.
由于前缀委派功能在某些连接的网络中可能不可用，因此强烈建议使用L#u REC#1以适应早期部署。
L_REC#3: The cellular CE router must be compliant with the requirements specified in [RFC7084].
L_REC#3：蜂窝式CE路由器必须符合[RFC7084]中规定的要求。
There are several deployments, particularly in emerging countries, that rely on mobile networks to provide broadband services (e.g., customers are provided with mobile CE routers).
有一些部署，特别是在新兴国家，依赖移动网络提供宽带服务（例如，为客户提供移动CE路由器）。
Note, this profile does not require IPv4 service continuity techniques listed in Section 4.4 of [RFC7084] because those are specific to fixed networks. IPv4 service continuity techniques specific to the mobile networks are included in this profile.
注意，此配置文件不需要[RFC7084]第4.4节中列出的IPv4服务连续性技术，因为这些技术特定于固定网络。此配置文件中包括特定于移动网络的IPv4服务连续性技术。
This recommendation does not apply to handsets with tethering capabilities; it is specific to cellular CE routers in order to ensure the same IPv6 functional parity for both fixed and cellular CE routers. Note, modern CE routers are designed with advanced functions such as link aggregation that consists in optimizing the network usage by aggregating the connectivity resources offered via various interfaces (e.g., Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), LTE, WLAN, etc.) or offloading the traffic via a subset of interfaces. Ensuring IPv6 feature parity among these interface types is important for the sake of specification efficiency, service design simplification, and validation effort optimization.
本建议不适用于具有栓系功能的手机；它专门针对蜂窝CE路由器，以确保固定和蜂窝CE路由器具有相同的IPv6功能奇偶性。注意，现代CE路由器的设计具有高级功能，例如链路聚合，通过聚合通过各种接口（例如，数字用户线（DSL）、LTE、WLAN等）提供的连接资源或通过接口子集卸载流量来优化网络使用。为了提高规范效率、简化服务设计和优化验证工作，确保这些接口类型之间的IPv6功能奇偶性非常重要。
L_REC#4: If an RA MTU is advertised from the 3GPP network, the cellular device should send RAs to the downstream attached LAN devices with the same MTU as seen on the mobile interface.
L_REC#4：如果从3GPP网络发布RA MTU广告，则蜂窝设备应使用移动接口上看到的相同MTU向下游连接的LAN设备发送RAs。
Receiving and relaying RA MTU values facilitates a more harmonious functioning of the mobile core network where end nodes transmit packets that do not exceed the MTU size of the mobile network's tunnels that use the GPRS Tunneling Protocol (GTP).
接收和中继RA MTU值有助于移动核心网络更和谐地运行，其中终端节点发送的数据包不超过使用GPRS隧道协议（GTP）的移动网络隧道的MTU大小。
[TS.23060] indicates providing a link MTU value of 1358 octets to the 3GPP cellular device will prevent the IP layer fragmentation within the transport network between the cellular device and the GGSN/PGW. More details about link MTU considerations can be found in Annex C of [TS.23060].
[TS.23060]表示向3GPP蜂窝设备提供1358个八位字节的链路MTU值将防止蜂窝设备与GGSN/PGW之间的传输网络内的IP层碎片。更多关于链路MTU注意事项的详细信息，请参见[TS.23060]的附录C。
This section identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill requirements of critical services such as VoLTE. These recommendations apply for mobile hosts, including mobile devices.
本节确定了一组高级建议，以满足关键服务（如VoLTE）的要求。这些建议适用于移动主机，包括移动设备。
A_REC#1: The cellular host must support the RObust Header Compression (ROHC) RTP Profile (0x0001) and the ROHC UDP Profile (0x0002) for IPv6 [RFC5795]. Other ROHC profiles may be supported.
A_REC#1：蜂窝主机必须支持IPv6的健壮报头压缩（ROHC）RTP配置文件（0x0001）和ROHC UDP配置文件（0x0002）[RFC5795]。可能支持其他ROHC配置文件。
Bandwidth in cellular networks must be optimized as much as possible. ROHC provides a solution to reduce bandwidth consumption and to reduce the impact of having bigger packet headers in IPv6 compared to IPv4.
蜂窝网络中的带宽必须尽可能优化。ROHC提供了一种解决方案，以减少带宽消耗，并减少IPv6中比IPv4具有更大数据包头的影响。
The "RTP/UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0001) to compress RTP packets and the "UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0002) to compress Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) packets are required for VoLTE by Section 4.1 of IR.92.7.0 [IR92]. Note, [IR92] indicates that the host must be able to apply the compression to packets that are carried over the voice-media-dedicated radio bearer.
IR.92.7.0[IR92]第4.1节要求VoLTE使用“RTP/UDP/IP”ROHC配置文件（0x0001）压缩RTP数据包，使用“UDP/IP”ROHC配置文件（0x0002）压缩实时传输控制协议（RTCP）数据包。注意，[IR92]表示主机必须能够将压缩应用于通过语音媒体专用无线电承载承载的数据包。
A_REC#2: The cellular host should support PCP [RFC6887].
建议2：蜂窝主机应支持PCP[RFC6887]。
The support of PCP is seen as a driver to save battery consumption exacerbated by keep-alive messages. PCP also gives the possibility of enabling incoming connections to the cellular device. Indeed, because
PCP的支持被视为一种节省电池消耗的驱动程序，而保持活动状态的消息加剧了这种情况。PCP还提供了启用到蜂窝设备的传入连接的可能性。的确，因为
several stateful devices may be deployed in wireless networks (e.g., NAT64 and/or IPv6 Firewalls), PCP can be used by the cellular host to control network-based NAT64 and IPv6 Firewall functions that will reduce per-application signaling and save battery consumption.
可以在无线网络中部署多个有状态设备（例如，NAT64和/或IPv6防火墙），蜂窝主机可以使用PCP来控制基于网络的NAT64和IPv6防火墙功能，这将减少每个应用程序的信令并节省电池消耗。
According to [Power], the consumption of a cellular device with a keep-alive interval equal to 20 seconds (which is the default value in [RFC3948], for example) is 29 mA (2G) / 34 mA (3G). This consumption is reduced to 16 mA (2G) / 24 mA (3G) when the interval is increased to 40 seconds, to 9.1 mA (2G) / 16 mA (3G) if the interval is equal to 150 seconds, and to 7.3 mA (2G) / 14 mA (3G) if the interval is equal to 180 seconds. When no keep-alive is issued, the consumption would be 5.2 mA (2G) / 6.1 mA (3G). The impact of keepalive messages would be more severe if multiple applications are issuing those messages (e.g., SIP, IPsec, etc.).
根据[Power]，保持活动间隔等于20秒（例如[RFC3948]中的默认值）的蜂窝设备的消耗为29 mA（2G）/34 mA（3G）。当间隔增加到40秒时，该消耗降低到16 mA（2G）/24 mA（3G）；如果间隔等于150秒，该消耗降低到9.1 mA（2G）/16 mA（3G）；如果间隔等于180秒，该消耗降低到7.3 mA（2G）/14 mA（3G）。如果未发出保持活动，则消耗量为5.2 mA（2G）/6.1 mA（3G）。如果多个应用程序发出这些消息（例如，SIP、IPsec等），keepalive消息的影响将更加严重。
Deploying PCP allows cellular hosts to manage protocols that convey IP addresses and/or port numbers (see Section 2.2 of [RFC6889]) without requiring Application Level Gateways (ALGs) to be enabled at the network side (e.g., NAT64). Avoiding soliciting ALGs makes it easier to develop a service without any adherence with the underlying transport network.
部署PCP允许蜂窝主机管理传输IP地址和/或端口号的协议（参见[RFC6889]第2.2节），而无需在网络端启用应用级网关（ALG）（例如NAT64）。避免索取ALG使开发服务更容易，而不必遵守底层传输网络。
A_REC#3: In order for host-based validation of DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) to continue to function in an IPv6-only connectivity with NAT64 deployment context, the cellular host should embed a DNS64 function ([RFC6147]).
建议3：为了使基于主机的DNS安全扩展验证（DNSSEC）在仅IPv6连接的NAT64部署上下文中继续运行，蜂窝主机应嵌入DNS64功能（[RFC6147]）。
This is called "DNS64 in stub-resolver mode" in [RFC6147].
这在[RFC6147]中称为“存根解析器模式下的DNS64”。
As discussed in Section 5.5 of [RFC6147], a security-aware and validating host has to perform the DNS64 function locally.
如[RFC6147]第5.5节所述，安全感知和验证主机必须在本地执行DNS64功能。
Because synthetic AAAA records cannot be successfully validated in a host, learning the PREFIX64 used to construct IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses allows the use of DNSSEC [RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035]. Means to configure or discover a PREFIX64 are required on the cellular device as discussed in C_REC#7.
由于无法在主机中成功验证合成AAAA记录，因此学习用于构造IPv4转换IPv6地址的PREFIX64允许使用DNSSEC[RFC4033][RFC4034][RFC4035]。如C#u REC#7所述，需要在蜂窝设备上配置或发现PREFIX64的方法。
[RFC7051] discusses why a security-aware and validating host has to perform the DNS64 function locally and why it has to be able to learn the proper PREFIX64(s).
[RFC7051]讨论了为什么安全感知和验证主机必须在本地执行DNS64功能，以及为什么它必须能够学习正确的前缀64。
A_REC#4: When the cellular host is dual-stack connected (i.e., configured with an IPv4 address and IPv6 prefix), it should support means to prefer a native IPv6 connection over a connection established through translation devices (e.g., NAT44 and NAT64).
A_REC#4：当蜂窝主机是双栈连接（即，配置了IPv4地址和IPv6前缀）时，它应该支持首选本机IPv6连接而不是通过转换设备（例如，NAT44和NAT64）建立的连接的方式。
When both IPv4 and IPv6 DNS servers are configured, a dual-stack host must first contact its IPv6 DNS server. This preference allows it to offload IPv4-only DNS servers.
配置IPv4和IPv6 DNS服务器时，双堆栈主机必须首先与其IPv6 DNS服务器联系。此首选项允许它卸载仅IPv4 DNS服务器。
Cellular hosts should follow the procedure specified in [RFC6724] for source address selection.
蜂窝主机应遵循[RFC6724]中规定的源地址选择程序。
The security considerations identified in [RFC7066] and [RFC6459] are to be taken into account.
应考虑[RFC7066]和[RFC6459]中确定的安全注意事项。
In the case of cellular CE routers, compliance with L_REC#3 entails compliance with [RFC7084], which in turn recommends compliance with Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service [RFC6092]. Therefore, the security considerations in Section 6 of [RFC6092] are relevant. In particular, it bears repeating here that the true impact of stateful filtering may be a reduction in security and that the IETF makes no statement, expressed or implied, as to whether using the capabilities described in any of these documents ultimately improves security for any individual users or for the Internet community as a whole.
在蜂窝式CE路由器的情况下，遵守L#u REC#3需要遵守[RFC7084]，而[RFC7084]又建议遵守客户场所设备（CPE）中建议的简单安全功能，以提供住宅IPv6互联网服务[RFC6092]。因此，[RFC6092]第6节中的安全注意事项是相关的。特别是，这里需要重申的是，有状态过滤的真正影响可能是安全性的降低，IETF没有明确或暗示地说明使用这些文档中描述的功能是否最终提高了任何单个用户或整个互联网社区的安全性。
The cellular host must be able to generate IPv6 addresses that preserve privacy. The activation of the privacy extension (e.g., using [RFC7217]) makes it more difficult to track a host over time when compared to using a permanent Interface Identifier. Tracking a host is still possible based on the first 64 bits of the IPv6 address. Means to prevent against such tracking issues may be enabled in the network side. Note, privacy extensions are required by regulatory bodies in some countries.
蜂窝主机必须能够生成保护隐私的IPv6地址。与使用永久接口标识符相比，隐私扩展的激活（例如，使用[RFC7217]）使得随着时间的推移跟踪主机更加困难。基于IPv6地址的前64位，仍然可以跟踪主机。可以在网络侧启用防止此类跟踪问题的方法。注意，某些国家的监管机构要求隐私扩展。
Host-based validation of DNSSEC is discussed in A_REC#3 (see Section 4).
DNSSEC的基于主机的验证在A#u REC#3中讨论（见第4节）。
[IR92] GSMA, "IMS Profile for Voice and SMS", Official Document IR.92 - IMS Profile for Voice and SMS, V7.0, March 2013, <http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ IR.92-v7.0.pdf>.
[IR92]GSMA，“语音和短信IMS配置文件”，官方文件IR.92-语音和短信IMS配置文件，V7.0，2013年3月<http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ IR.92-v7.0.pdf>。
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2460]Deering，S.和R.Hinden，“互联网协议，第6版（IPv6）规范”，RFC 2460，DOI 10.17487/RFC2460，1998年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.
[RFC3596]Thomson，S.，Huitema，C.，Ksinant，V.，和M.Souissi，“支持IP版本6的DNS扩展”，RFC 3596，DOI 10.17487/RFC3596，2003年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
[RFC3633]Troan，O.和R.Droms，“动态主机配置协议（DHCP）版本6的IPv6前缀选项”，RFC 3633，DOI 10.17487/RFC3633，2003年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC3986]Berners Lee，T.，Fielding，R.，和L.Masinter，“统一资源标识符（URI）：通用语法”，STD 66，RFC 3986，DOI 10.17487/RFC3986，2005年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, DOI 10.17487/RFC5795, March 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5795>.
[RFC5795]Sandlund，K.，Pelletier，G.和L-E.Jonsson，“鲁棒头压缩（ROHC）框架”，RFC 5795，DOI 10.17487/RFC5795，2010年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5795>.
[RFC5954] Gurbani, V., Ed., Carpenter, B., Ed., and B. Tate, Ed., "Essential Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261", RFC 5954, DOI 10.17487/RFC5954, August 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5954>.
[RFC5954]Gurbani，V.，Ed.，Carpenter，B.，Ed.，和B.Tate，Ed.，“RFC 3261中IPv6 ABNF和URI比较的基本纠正”，RFC 5954，DOI 10.17487/RFC5954，2010年8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5954>.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.
[RFC6052]Bao，C.，Huitema，C.，Bagnulo，M.，Boucadair，M.，和X.Li，“IPv4/IPv6转换器的IPv6寻址”，RFC 6052，DOI 10.17487/RFC6052，2010年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.
[RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan, "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation", RFC 6603, DOI 10.17487/RFC6603, May 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6603>.
[RFC6603]Korhonen，J.，Ed.，Savolainen，T.，Krishnan，S.，和O.Troan，“基于DHCPv6的前缀委托的前缀排除选项”，RFC 6603，DOI 10.17487/RFC6603，2012年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6603>.
[RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S. Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066, November 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066>.
[RFC7066]Korhonen，J.，Ed.，Arkko，J.，Ed.，Savolainen，T.，和S.Krishnan，“第三代合作伙伴关系项目（3GPP）蜂窝主机的IPv6”，RFC 7066，DOI 10.17487/RFC7066，2013年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066>.
[TS.23060] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service description; Stage 2", 3GPP TS 23.060 13.6.0, March 2016, <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23060.htm>.
[TS.23060]3GPP，“通用分组无线业务（GPRS）；业务描述；第2阶段”，3GPP TS 23.060 13.6.012016年3月<http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23060.htm>.
[TS.23401] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TS 23.401 13.6.1, March 2016, <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23401.htm>.
[TS.23401]3GPP，“通用分组无线业务（GPRS）增强，用于演进通用地面无线接入网（E-UTRAN）接入”，3GPP TS 23.401 13.6.11916年3月<http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23401.htm>.
[TS.24008] 3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core network protocols; Stage 3", 3GPP TS 24.008 13.5.0, March 2016, <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>.
[TS.24008]3GPP，“移动无线接口第3层规范；核心网络协议；第3阶段”，3GPP TS 24.008 13.5.012016年3月<http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>.
[OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), "The Economics of the Transition to Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", DOI 10.1787/5jxt46d07bhc-en, November 2014, <http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publ icdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DSTI/ICCP/CISP%282014%293/ FINAL&docLanguage=En>.
[OECD]经济合作与发展组织（OECD），“向互联网协议版本6（IPv6）过渡的经济学”，DOI 10.1787/5jxt46d07bhc-en，2014年11月<http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publ icdisplaydocumentpdf/？cote=DSTI/ICCP/CISP%282014%293/FINAL&docLanguage=En>。
[Power] Haverinen, H., Siren, J., and P. Eronen, "Energy Consumption of Always-On Applications in WCDMA Networks", Proceedings of IEEE 65: Vehicular Technology Conference, VTC2007-Spring, pp 964-968, DOI 10.1109/VETECS.2007.207, April 2007, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/ articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4212635>.
[Power]Haverinen，H.，Siren，J.，和P.Eronen，“WCDMA网络中常开应用的能耗”，IEEE 65会议记录：车辆技术会议，VTC2007 Spring，第964-968页，DOI 10.1109/VETECS.2007.207，2007年4月<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/ articleDetails.jsp？arnumber=4212635>。
[R3GPP] 3GPP, "The Mobile Broadband Standard: Releases", 2016, <http://www.3gpp.org/specifications/67-releases>.
[R3GPP]3GPP，“移动宽带标准：发布”，2016年<http://www.3gpp.org/specifications/67-releases>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC3261]Rosenberg，J.，Schulzrinne，H.，Camarillo，G.，Johnston，A.，Peterson，J.，Sparks，R.，Handley，M.，和E.Schooler，“SIP：会话启动协议”，RFC 3261，DOI 10.17487/RFC3261，2002年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC3948] Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M. Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets", RFC 3948, DOI 10.17487/RFC3948, January 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3948>.
[RFC3948]Huttunen，A.，Swander，B.，Volpe，V.，DiBurro，L.，和M.Stenberg，“IPsec ESP数据包的UDP封装”，RFC 3948，DOI 10.17487/RFC3948，2005年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3948>.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[RFC4033]Arends，R.，Austein，R.，Larson，M.，Massey，D.，和S.Rose，“DNS安全介绍和要求”，RFC 4033，DOI 10.17487/RFC4033，2005年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC4034]Arends，R.，Austein，R.，Larson，M.，Massey，D.，和S.Rose，“DNS安全扩展的资源记录”，RFC 4034，DOI 10.17487/RFC4034，2005年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
[RFC4035]Arends，R.，Austein，R.，Larson，M.，Massey，D.，和S.Rose，“DNS安全扩展的协议修改”，RFC 4035，DOI 10.17487/RFC4035，2005年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
[RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., Ed., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092, DOI 10.17487/RFC6092, January 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6092>.
[RFC6092]Woodyatt，J.，Ed.，“提供住宅IPv6互联网服务的客户场所设备（CPE）中推荐的简单安全功能”，RFC 6092，DOI 10.17487/RFC6092，2011年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6092>.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 6145, DOI 10.17487/RFC6145, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6145>.
[RFC6145]Li，X.，Bao，C.，和F.Baker，“IP/ICMP翻译算法”，RFC 6145DOI 10.17487/RFC6145，2011年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6145>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6146]Bagnulo，M.，Matthews，P.，和I.van Beijnum，“有状态NAT64：从IPv6客户端到IPv4服务器的网络地址和协议转换”，RFC 6146，DOI 10.17487/RFC6146，2011年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147, DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
[RFC6147]Bagnulo，M.，Sullivan，A.，Matthews，P.，和I.van Beijnum，“DNS64：用于从IPv6客户端到IPv4服务器的网络地址转换的DNS扩展”，RFC 6147，DOI 10.17487/RFC6147，2011年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
[RFC6342] Koodli, R., "Mobile Networks Considerations for IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6342, DOI 10.17487/RFC6342, August 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6342>.
[RFC6342]Koodli，R.，“IPv6部署的移动网络注意事项”，RFC 6342，DOI 10.17487/RFC6342，2011年8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6342>.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.
[RFC6434]Jankiewicz，E.，Loughney，J.和T.Narten，“IPv6节点要求”，RFC 6434，DOI 10.17487/RFC6434，2011年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.
[RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)", RFC 6459, DOI 10.17487/RFC6459, January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6459>.
[RFC6459]Korhonen，J.，Ed.，Soininen，J.，Patil，B.，Savolainen，T.，Bajko，G.，和K.Iisakkila，“第三代合作伙伴关系项目（3GPP）中的IPv6演进包系统（EPS）”，RFC 6459，DOI 10.17487/RFC6459，2012年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6459>.
[RFC6535] Huang, B., Deng, H., and T. Savolainen, "Dual-Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)", RFC 6535, DOI 10.17487/RFC6535, February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6535>.
[RFC6535]Huang，B.，Deng，H.，和T.Savolainen，“使用“主机中的凹凸”（BIH）的双堆栈主机”，RFC 6535，DOI 10.17487/RFC65352012年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6535>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC6724]Thaler，D.，Ed.，Draves，R.，Matsumoto，A.，和T.Chown，“互联网协议版本6（IPv6）的默认地址选择”，RFC 6724，DOI 10.17487/RFC67242012年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[RFC6877]Mawatari，M.，Kawashima，M.，和C.Byrne，“464XLAT：有状态和无状态翻译的组合”，RFC 6877，DOI 10.17487/RFC6877，2013年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC6887]Wing，D.，Ed.，Cheshire，S.，Boucadair，M.，Penno，R.，和P.Selkirk，“港口控制协议（PCP）”，RFC 6887，DOI 10.17487/RFC6887，2013年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC6889] Penno, R., Saxena, T., Boucadair, M., and S. Sivakumar, "Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation", RFC 6889, DOI 10.17487/RFC6889, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6889>.
[RFC6889]Penno，R.，Saxena，T.，Boucadair，M.，和S.Sivakumar，“有状态64翻译的分析”，RFC 6889，DOI 10.17487/RFC6889，2013年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6889>.
[RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.
[RFC7050]Savolainen，T.，Korhonen，J.，和D.Wing，“用于IPv6地址合成的IPv6前缀的发现”，RFC 7050，DOI 10.17487/RFC7050，2013年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.
[RFC7051] Korhonen, J., Ed. and T. Savolainen, Ed., "Analysis of Solution Proposals for Hosts to Learn NAT64 Prefix", RFC 7051, DOI 10.17487/RFC7051, November 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7051>.
[RFC7051]Korhonen，J.，Ed.和T.Savolainen，Ed.，“主机学习NAT64前缀的解决方案分析”，RFC 7051，DOI 10.17487/RFC7051，2013年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7051>.
[RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084, DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
[RFC7084]Singh，H.，Beebee，W.，Donley，C.，和B.Stark，“IPv6客户边缘路由器的基本要求”，RFC 7084，DOI 10.17487/RFC7084，2013年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217, DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC7217]Gont，F.“使用IPv6无状态地址自动配置（SLAAC）生成语义不透明接口标识符的方法”，RFC 7217，DOI 10.17487/RFC72172014年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225, DOI 10.17487/RFC7225, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>.
[RFC7225]Boucadair，M.，“使用端口控制协议（PCP）发现NAT64 IPv6前缀”，RFC 7225，DOI 10.17487/RFC7225，2014年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>.
[RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278, DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>.
[RFC7278]Byrne，C.，Durke，D.，和A.Vizdal，“将IPv6/64前缀从第三代合作伙伴项目（3GPP）移动接口扩展到LAN链路”，RFC 7278，DOI 10.17487/RFC7278，2014年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>.
[RFC7335] Byrne, C., "IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix", RFC 7335, DOI 10.17487/RFC7335, August 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7335>.
[RFC7335]Byrne，C.，“IPv4服务连续性前缀”，RFC 7335，DOI 10.17487/RFC7335，2014年8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7335>.
[RFC7445] Chen, G., Deng, H., Michaud, D., Korhonen, J., and M. Boucadair, "Analysis of Failure Cases in IPv6 Roaming Scenarios", RFC 7445, DOI 10.17487/RFC7445, March 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7445>.
[RFC7445]Chen，G.，Deng，H.，Michaud，D.，Korhonen，J.，和M.Boucadair，“IPv6漫游场景中的故障案例分析”，RFC 7445，DOI 10.17487/RFC74452015年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7445>.
[TS.23402] 3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses", 3GPP TS 23.401 13.5.0, March 2016, <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23402.htm>.
[TS.23402]3GPP，“非3GPP接入的架构增强”，3GPP TS 23.401 13.5.012016年3月<http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23402.htm>.
Acknowledgements
致谢
Many thanks to C. Byrne, H. Soliman, H. Singh, L. Colliti, T. Lemon, B. Sarikaya, M. Mawatari, M. Abrahamsson, P. Vickers, V. Kuarsingh, E. Kline, S. Josefsson, A. Baryun, J. Woodyatt, T. Kossut, B. Stark, and A. Petrescu for the discussion in the v6ops mailing list and for the comments.
非常感谢C.Byrne、H.Soliman、H.Singh、L.Colliti、T.Lemon、B.Sarikaya、M.Mawatari、M.Abrahamsson、P.Vickers、V.Kuarsingh、E.Kline、S.Josefsson、A.Baryun、J.Woodyatt、T.Kossut、B.Stark和A.Petrescu在v6ops邮件列表中的讨论和评论。
Thanks to A. Farrel, B. Haberman, and K. Moriarty for the comments during the IESG review.
感谢A.Farrel、B.Haberman和K.Moriarty在IESG审查期间的评论。
Special thanks to T. Savolainen, J. Korhonen, J. Jaeggli, F. Baker, L.M. Contreras Murillo, and M. Abrahamsson for their detailed reviews and comments.
特别感谢T.Savolainen、J.Korhonen、J.Jaeggli、F.Baker、L.M.Contreras Murillo和M.Abrahamsson的详细评论和评论。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
David Binet Orange Rennes France
大卫·比内·奥兰治·雷恩法国
Email: david.binet@orange.com
Email: david.binet@orange.com
Mohamed Boucadair Orange Rennes 35000 France
穆罕默德·布卡代尔·奥兰治·雷恩35000法国
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Ales Vizdal Deutsche Telekom AG Tomickova 2144/1 Prague, 148 00 Czech Republic
捷克共和国布拉格托米科娃2144/1号德意志电信公司
Email: Ales.Vizdal@T-Mobile.cz
Email: Ales.Vizdal@T-Mobile.cz
Gang Chen China Mobile 29, Jinrong Avenue Xicheng District, Beijing 100033 China
中国移动北京市西城区锦荣大道29号陈刚100033
Email: phdgang@gmail.com, chengang@chinamobile.com
Email: phdgang@gmail.com, chengang@chinamobile.com
Nick Heatley EE The Point, 37 North Wharf Road, London W2 1AG United Kingdom
Nick Heatley EE The Point，英国伦敦北码头路37号W2 1AG
Email: nick.heatley@ee.co.uk
Email: nick.heatley@ee.co.uk
Ross Chandler eircom | meteor 1HSQ St. John's Road Dublin 8 Ireland
罗斯·钱德勒·艾尔科姆|流星1HSQ圣约翰路都柏林8号爱尔兰
Email: ross@eircom.net
Email: ross@eircom.net
Dave Michaud Rogers Communications 8200 Dixie Rd. Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Canada
戴夫·米肖德·罗杰斯通讯公司位于加拿大L6T 0C1的布兰顿迪克西路8200号
Email: dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com
Email: dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com
Diego R. Lopez Telefonica I+D Don Ramon de la Cruz, 82 Madrid 28006 Spain
Diego R.Lopez Telefonica I+D Don Ramon de la Cruz，82马德里28006西班牙
Phone: +34 913 129 041
Email: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com
Phone: +34 913 129 041
Email: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com
Walter Haeffner Vodafone D2 GmbH Ferdinand-Braun-Platz 1 Duesseldorf 40549 Germany
沃尔特·哈夫纳·沃达丰D2股份有限公司德国杜塞尔多夫费迪南德·布劳恩广场1号40549
Email: walter.haeffner@vodafone.com
Email: walter.haeffner@vodafone.com